An Analysis of Environmental Management Approaches with Six Midwestern Dairy Farms:Informing Progress Toward a Sustainable Agriculture

Mrill Ingram & Karl Hakanson, UW-Madison

Driving through Wisconsin and Minnesota you pass similar looking dairy farms that are managed in very different ways, each with different emphasis and approaches to environmental and business management.

Is this an organic farm?Is it a Biodynamic Farm?A large permitted dairy?Or is it a “conventional” farm?

Is this a “sustainable” farm?Is it an “unsustainable” farm?Is it more or less sustainable than the neighbors?

This research project studied six dairy farms managed under six different environmental programs.

The main objective was to learn from successful farmers what the necessary conditions for bringing about a more sustainable agriculture might be.

Project Goals• How do different programs and policies

focus on the environment? Gaps? Overlap?

• What do successful farmers engaged in these different programs have in common?

• How might an environmental management system (EMS) improve/inform these programs?

Methods1. “On-paper” comparison of the six

program’s rules, regulations, standards.2. Case studies of six exemplary farms.3. Development of EMS on each farm to

explore sustainability.

PART I: How might agricultural-environmental programs and policies be directing farmers to act toward the environment?

Agricultural environmental management programs

Six Ag-Environmental Programs

-- USDA Certified Organic (NOP)

-- Food Alliance Certified (FA)

-- Holistic Management (HM)

-- Demeter Certified Biodynamic (BD)

-- WPDES Permitted (CAFO)

-- Soil & Water Conservation programs

(S&W)

How are these different programs informing agricultural sustainability?

Dimensions of Ag-Environmental

Programs

Ag-environmental programs require attention to certain biological and physical environmental aspects and rely

on various elements of community involvement and individual farmer performance.

Biological / Physical Environment

CommunityScrutiny / Support

Farmer Responsibility / Program Oversight

Program dimension:

Biophysical Environment

• Soil Quality• Water Quality• Air Quality• Resource Conservation• Wildlife & Biodiversity • Crops and Livestock

Program dimension:

Farmer Responsibility / Program Oversight• Records, Reporting, Inspection• Plan requirements• Certification• Application costs; time• Goal setting• Flexibility• Continuing education• Continual improvement• Consequences of noncompliance

• Employee health and safety • Employee participation• Neighbor relations• Farmer networking• Product quality• Wider community input• Governmental oversight

Program dimension:

Community Scrutiny & Support

Findings: Program Emphasis Biological & Physical Dimensions

o Soil erosion & water quality (state/fed programs)o Soil organic matter (“alternative” programs)o Wildlife/biodiversity (Food Alliance, organic)o Animal welfare (biodynamic, organic, Food

Alliance) Farmer Responsibility & Program

Oversighto Record keeping (all)o Continual improvement (HM, Food Alliance)o Goal setting (HM)

Community Dimensionso Worker health and welfare (Food Alliance)o Wider community input (Food Alliance, CAFO)o Consumer health (organic but especially BD)o Wildlife/biodiversity (Food Alliance, organic)o Animal welfare (biodynamic, organic, Food

Alliance)

Findings: Program Gaps

Important biophysical dimensions of sustainability currently receiving little

attention from the six programs:

Energy conservation

Air quality

Water conservation

Resource conservation

Agricultural sustainability is being pursued in positive dimensions:• Increasing the ability of farmers

to be better decision-makers• Providing a stronger philosophy

of serving one’s community• Recognizing the value of specific

measures to manage soil, water, biodiversity

• Human health & safety• Livestock welfare

Conclusion from Content Analysis:Distinctions between “sustainable” and “unsustainable” programs hard to draw

PART II: Case Studies of Six FarmsWhat are common traits of successful

environmental management?

Commitmentenvironmental stewardship is business excellence

Three “C’s” of Sustainable Agriculture

Communityno farm is an island

Continual ImprovementRequirements are the starting point

Certified Organic Farm

Food Alliance Certified Farm

Holistic Management Farm

Certified Biodynamic Farm

Permitted (WPDES) Farm

Soil & Water Conservation Farm

PlanDo

Check

Act

EMS: A self-directed process of continual improvement, environmental stewardship & business efficiency.

PART III: Develop environmental management systems on each farm to further explore sustainability

Conduct “Environmental Aspects Inventory”

Prioritize two aspects to work on

Assess current status of aspects

Develop objectives and plan for improvement

Implement plan, document actions

Monitor and document results

The EMS Process for this study

 

Identification and Prioritization of Environmental Aspects

 

Farm Energy Priority Other Priority

Food Alliance Energy use: milk house Runoff: winter-spring pastures

WPDES Operation efficiency/SOPs Worker safety

Soil & Water Energy Use: dairy barn Soil Conservation & Nutrient Mgmt plans

Organic Fuel Use: row crops Upland & riparian bird habitat

Holistic Mgmt. Feasibility of wind power Runoff: milk house

Biodynamic Fuel use: straw handling Compost management

Benefits of EMS• Development of standard operating procedures

• Framework to systematically consider various aspects of environmental management

• Considering new ideas and approaches

• Taking care of known issues that need attention

• Taking the time to plan

• Consideration of energy conservation and efficiency

• Attention to family and employee communications

• Working with new people, advisors, specialists

• Working with a “coach” to move process along

Barriers to EMS Implementation

• Time constraints; additional administrative and record-keeping requirements; takes away from time-sensitive tasks

• Incentives/results/proof of benefits lacking• Coach/consultant/personnel necessary to keep

process/projects on track not available• “Paperwork”, meetings, planning not valued

– It’s not farmwork; getting something done

• ISO/certified EMS not scale-neutral• Perception that “an EMS” is yet another

program or set of practices to adopt

Recommendations on EMS• Emphasize key parts of the process --assess, prioritize,

plan, monitor, communicate-- not “EMS” per se• Introduce processes into management approaches

already in use• Create documents, instructions that emphasize action• Create simple record keeping, monitoring protocols• Identify ways for existing personnel, consultants,

service providers to serve as process coaches• Focus on “what’s in it for me?” --Benefits must be real• Engage all “stakeholders” in improving environmental

management, especially specialists, staff• Stress need for effective communications at all levels

Policy Implications

• Voluntary EMS has limitations as a stand-alone program. It should be coupled with complementary incentive or regulation programs.

• Supply chain pressure and civil society pressure can also play a role in providing incentives for environmental management.

• EMS as a process tool can be “married” with existing programs.

• Farms/communities can assess highest environmental priorities and utilize parts of the EMS to move farmers toward greater sustainability.

Grateful thanks to the funding provided by the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE), the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)!

www.sare.org/ncrsare

www.csrees.usda.gov

www.usda.gov

Investigators:

Mrill Ingram Karl Hakansonmingram@wisc.edu

klirhn@centurytel.net

Contact:

Sharon Lezberg608-265-3473slezberg@wisc.edu

Environmental Resources CenterUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison445 Henry Mall, Room 202AMadison, WI 53706http://www.uwex.edu/farmandhome/